Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes

Hello maintainer, I am accepting freehep-swing. However, as discussed, please consider adding the missing copyright holders and try to prod upstream to add a proper license file to the tarball. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant

Re: Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes

Mascellani ha scritto: Hi, (Cc:-ing Gabriele Giacone, comaintainer with me) Barry deFreese ha scritto: Hello maintainer, The orig.tar.gz for FreeHEP swing doesn't seem to carry a LICENSE or COPYING file and I cannot find any mention of the GPL in any headers. Where are you getting

Comments regarding freehep-swing_2.0.3-1_amd64.changes

/copyright. CERN and SLAC. I have not accepted or rejected this package yet until I hear back from you. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http

simple-xml_2.1.5-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Hello maintainer, I am rejecting simple-xml. Debian/copyright states the files are LGPL-2.1 but I cannot find anywhere in the file headers nor any COPYING or LICENSE file that states they are 2.1, but rather just LGPL. Am I missing it? Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP Assistant

Bug#549812: lucene2: FTBFS: annotations are not supported in -source 1.4

Hi, Here is a patch that works for me. It doesn't seem to work with the 2.9.0 on mentors though. Thanks, Barry deFreese #! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run ## 100_javac_source_1.5.dpatch by bdefre...@bddebian3.bddebian.com ## ## All lines beginning with `## DP:' are a description

Comments regarding simple-xml_2.1.5-1_i386.changes

Hello maintainer, I am trying to get some clarity on simple-xml. In debian/copyright you specify that the package is LGPL 2.1. However, I cannot find any indication of a version of the LGPL the package is carried under. Am I missing it somewhere? Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian FTP

vecmath1.2: should this package be removed?

normal reassign nn ftp.debian.org retitle nn RM: packagename -- RoM; reasons thanks For more information, see http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java

Bug#548753: vecmath1.2: should this package be removed?

severity 548753 normal reassign 548753 ftp.debian.org retitle 548753 RM: vecmath1.2 -- RoQA; outdated, dead upstream, very low popcon thank you Hi, I am moving this right to an RM after speaking with one of the Java Team maintainers. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA

Re: tijmp_0.8-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

and tijmp is the only remaining build dependency. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers

Re: tijmp_0.8-2_amd64.changes REJECTED

snip tijmp 0.8+dfsg-1 Build-Depends on openjdk-6-jdk instead of sun-java6-jdk. Its currently waiting in NEW for processing. Cheers, Michael Michael, Yeah, I missed the change in build-dep, my screw up. Sorry for the noise! Barry ___

Bug#529493: libnsuml-java: Please remove build-dep on jikes-kaffe

and remove the jikes-kaffe build-depends? Another option would be to remove libnsuml-java from the archive as it has no r(b)depends and a low popcon score. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers

Bug#528081: xerces-j: Please remove build-dep on jikes

Eric Lavarde wrote: Hi, sounds to me that the best resolution would be to remove xerces-j as well: no software depends on it (says 'apt-cache showpkg'), and it's been superseded by xerces2 since ages (also upstream). I'm no DD but let me know if I can help. Eric Barry deFreese wrote

Bug#528081: xerces-j: Please remove build-dep on jikes

build-depends? I've tried it with openjdk-6-jdk and it seems to work fairly well but does still have some issues. Thank you, Barry deFreese Debian QA ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http